pmb

Spyman, thank you, particularly if your tip was aimed at me.

 

pmb, thank you for the follow up.

You're very welcome studiot. Sorry for the delay. Next time please kick me in the cyber pants so I know that I'm supposed to respond. PM me if I seem to not notice. I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

ok so i have no idea what to look for but i was talking to someone who knows a little bit about quantum theory's and watches some of the newest discovrys of quantum physics and he mentioned something about when one of the two or three if you include gravitons, luxon particles interact with each other it will move simultaneously regardless of distance inferring faster than light reactions i want to no how much is fact and where i can get some more information on this topic

Luxon's are defined as particles that move at the speed of light. Photons are a good example. But photons don't interact with each other outside of quantum entanglement. But you made no mention of the luxons being entangled and you mentioned no other reason why they should. However there was an article in Scientific American about this subject back in 1993.

Faster than Light?, Raymond Y. Chiao, Paul G. Kwiat and Aephraim M. Steinberg, Scientific American, August 1993

Experiments in quantum optics show that two distant events can influence each other faster than any signal could have traveled between them.

If I turn on a laser in space, will it accelerate ?

Usually rocket engine send mass to the back to accelerate in the opposite direction. Light has no mass, but has momentum and by conservation of momentum law the laser should accelarate...

I am not sure and that is why I am asking.

Yes, it will accelerate.

I would like to know the range (of lengths and amplitudes) of the electromagnetic waves known and theoretically possible

 

 

Could be between 10 exp -35 meters (Plack Dimension) and 10 exp +1 meters (radio waves).

Sorry. I don't know what kind of sources there are to produce those wavelengths. However it seems to me that ther are ELF (extra low freqency) waves whose wavelengths are very very long so as to communicate with submarines. The Russians use a wavelengths of 3,658.5 kilometers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines#Extremely_low_frequency

It seems to me that if you found a source of EM waves with those wavelengths then you could change your frame of referene to get a different wavelength using the Doppler Effect to get a new frequency.

When someone is suicidal they want their life to end, are not sane, and are usually baker acted which I think should happen for their own good. What if someone is suicidal but doesn't want to kill themselves?

I disagree. I think that there are some sane people who want to kill themselves. I tried to kill myself in Jan of this year. I suffer from spinal cord disease. It's casused 4 herniated disks so far. It was going untreated. I wasn't allowed any pain medication. The pain was far too much for me to bear. I kept seeking and asking for help but met with refusal. Doctors just don't care if their patients are in pain. That's why I hate doctors. I've been fighting this pain for seven years at that point. Finally one day I just couldn't take it anymore. So I took out a razor and cut my throat open. Death was mercy for me. The only thing I could think of after being refused help for so long. I got scared and called my doctor and he called 911 so I did live, of course. It was only then was I taken seriously and they put me on suboxone (a narcotic)

But come the day that I'm back with that pain again I'd surely find a tall building and jump off.

So watch out Cap'n and any male moderators - the birds are out to get you!

Oh man! The movie "The Birds" always freaked me out. To this day I can't watch that movie! Yeeesh!!!

pmb;

 

You should have seen how far off my first try was. I had to edit to make the meaning clearer and still missed the mark.

Yeah. I do that a lot. I often edit my responses several time before I'm satisfied with it.

Max Planck's h is a discrete amount of energy, maybe fundamental was the wrong word to use. The v is of course the multipler.

h is the multiplier and v is the frequency variable of the photon whose energy is being determined, i.e. for a photon of frequency v it has an energy E = hv.

The OP asked a question. What is energy?

Yep. If you recall, I answered with my web page. This question comes up a lot in physics forums. Instead of writing the same ole thing over and over I took some time to do it right and then post it when the question comes up. The page is at

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/mech/what_is_energy.htm

With Max Planck's h we have a very small discrete amount of energy to consider. I read that Planck was disturbed by any physical interpretation oh h. If someone can explain what h is instead of just being an amount, it would be an exlpanation for one manisfestation of energy.

I see it as simply a constant of proportionality between an oscialltor of frequency v having energy E = hv.

Mummy says that since I've been good and finished my homework I can go out tonight as long as I'm home by 9 o'clock

This is just plain creepy!

Yes it was the BBC that established the answer to the universe is 42.

 

ref: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Actually it was Douglas Adams who established that in the book you referred to.

For optical photons E=hv, indicating a fundamental multiple.

Hi 'elemental' - Welcome to the forum!

E = hv does not indicate a fundamental multiple. I'm at a loss to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Can you explain it for me? Thanks.

Note: E = hv holds for all photons, not just optical ones.

And to elaborate on this post and repeat something a number of people have said but that certain people in this thread continue to ignore, it's not personal.

We all understand that we're not supposed to get personal. However in practice anybody can give you a negative rep for any reason they want to. I believe I get a lot of that myself, i.e. ne reps by people who don't like me. I don't mind so much because I recognize these facts. You simply can't control why people vote as they do. Some people might love what you posted but not vote it up at all. Then the post might be to correct an error someone made and that correcting post might be voted down because the person who wrote it can't take constructive criticism.

People have bad days too and that came show up in the writing. I've been quite sick lately and don't think I've been as polite as I'd like to be because of that. I sure hope not though.

Lately I find myself up voting posts for their politeness. I always appreciate politeness. The entire purpose of all my posts is to help people understand the physics of a subject that they ask about. I have no other motive. It'd be nice to have a + vote when people thank you but that doesn't happen. But their thanks is all the reward we should need.

I don't follow this?

 

Are you perhaps saying because the energy increase is due to oscillator frequency increase or some other cause?

Sorry for the delay. I didn't know you were addressing this question to me.

I meant that you can give the particles in the body an increase in kinetic energy, without chaging the velocity of the object. I meant to say that so people wouldn't confuse this mass increase with an increase in relativistic mass of the object as a whole. I see that it didn't work though.

I'm only wondering if an equation can be made to find the strength of a gravitational feild.

 

The mass to gravitational field exerted proprtion, shouldnt their be one?

I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. swansont and myself have already show you the equation that you're asking about. It's F = GMm/r^2. Since we already posted it I don't know what you're now looking for. Can you clarify this for me?

No shooting here, only a polite and impersonal remark about the non-existence of gravitational forces in GR. The christoffel symbols are not gravitational fields. The christoffel have no true physical meaning.

The definition of "gravitational field", as well as their true physical meaning, is found in Gravitation by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW) on page 467

One can always find in any given locality a frame of reference in which all "gravitational fields" (all Christoffel symbols; all [math]\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}[/math]) disappear. No [math]\Gamma[/math]'s means "no gravitational fields" and no local gravitational field means no "local gravitational energy-momentum."

In the third place, pmb's cannot be derivative with respect to s, unless he is now using another notation than that he used before here when he tried to define kinetic momentum (e.g. in #3).

They aren't. The first section of

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_force.htm

defines the [math]v^{\alpha}[/math] as the derivative with respect to coordinate timne, t. Thus it is valid for luxons.

In the second place, in the geodesic equation of motion cannot be proper time for massless particles.

The end result is derivatives with respect to coordinate time. The expression holds for both luxons and tardons. The m in it is simply [math]m = P^0/c[/math] which is valid for luxons as well as tardyons.

..., [math]m\Gamma_{ij}^{k}v^i v^j[/math] is not a gravitational force because it includes a Christoffel symbol! Gravitation is not a force in general relativity.

The summation is over 0, 1, 2, 3. i and j usually denote summation over 1, 2, 3.

There is a zero 4-force on a particle in free-fall. However the gravitational force is not a 4-force, it's an inertial force and as such is represented by the Christoffel symbols as is the gravitational field as seen in MTW above

The definition of the gravitational force is in Basic Relativity[/b by Richard A. Mould, [i]Springer Verlag[/i], 1994 page 262 Eq. (8.65)

[math]G_{\mu} = m\Gamma^{\sigma}_{\mu\tau}v_{\sigma}v^{\tau}[/math]

No problems, take your time and get well!

I feel a little bit better today. I double checked my expression for the gravitational force with that of Mould's and they are identical. Mould's text was my motivation for my derivation.

I find the following passage to be very comforting. From Psalm 23 King James Version (KJV)

23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

 

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

 

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

 

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

 

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

 

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

I don't know much about thermal increases of mass, but it sounds an awful lot like a relativistic increase of mass which is often seen being down to kinetic energy.

No. They're quite different. If you heat an object you are infusing it with thermal energy which means that the average kinetic energy of the atoms which make up the body increases. This happens without an increase in velocity. This causes an increase in the proper mass of the object. There is zero increase in the kinetic energy of the object and therefore the relativistic mass has nothing to do with it. Thermal energy is just one example of an energy increase and mass increase accordoing to E₀ = m₀c², Here it is the m₀ that increases by the addition of E₀ in the form of thermal energy.

But relativistic mass increase due to an increase in kinetic energy is another form of mass increase and I do subscribe to relativistic mass being a valid definition of mass. I disagree with Taylor and Wheeler on this point. They believe that relativistic energy and relativistic mass are the same thing. I disagree. I gave an example in my paper on mass where they havve different values.

I don't understand your objection to relativistic mass though, given what you've said about mass in the past. E.g. in response to my giving the value of passive gravitational mass (which is identical to relativistic mass) you wrote

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66737-what-is-mass/page__view__findpost__p__686760

That's fine, no probs with that in my eyes

So I ask you once again.

 

You have stated in so many words exactly and precisely that mass is an electrical phenomenon.

 

I disagree and ask you to prove your claim.

 

Please address the question asked not something else.

A counter example is the contribution to the mass of a body due to thermal energy. That mass increase is due to kinetic energy, not electromagnetic energy.

It sounds like you only use the negative rep button??? Please be so kind to press the green positive rep when you see a good post too... then people will complain less about receiving too much negative rep.

I use the green positive button a good deal of the time and rarely use the red negative button.

Also, I don't complain about negative rep points. As I mentioned above, I don't pay too much attention to them. I know they don't reflect who I am. I'm secure enough not to take things here personally. I also know that the neg-rep gets misused. I think that its hit when I say something someone doesn't agree with. Like when I post the definitions of such things as inertial mass or gravitational force and metion that a gravitational field need not have spacetime curvature to deflect a beam of light. These are all very true things but some people hate to see me talk about them.

Watch this video and discuss whether or not the bible might actually be an outline of the future.

It's my belief that God doesn't know the future. If he did then he wouldn't have regreted having created man just to wipe them out in a flood.

There literally has not been any ACTUAL evidence prooving or disprooving the big bang. All we have at our disposal is logic. And logic can be tough to work with sometimes.

Science doesn't work by proving theories. Observations either provide evidence to support a theory or they can prove a theory wrong. But no amount of evidence can prove a theory right.

I don't like the reputation system. It does seem ripe for abuse. Here is a good example

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66798-light-has-mass/page__view__findpost__p__682857

In that post I responded to five comments. Each of my respones was created so as to (1) correct historical inaccuraces (2) telling a poster he wasn't dumb for asking the question (3) explain that light actually is affected by gravity (4) explain that light can be deflected by a gravitational field even in the absense of spacetime curvature and (5) agree that Einstein's books are nice to read

I got a negative reputation on that post. I believe I know who did it and why it was done and in my opinion it was not for a respectable reason.

Then again I don't pay attention to rep points. I simply forget to look at them. However lately I've been using them when I see people being rude or making too many errors withing a thread.

I have read the entire Bible at least twice. Has anyone else here read the entire Bible?

I find that book to be extremely difficult for me to read cover to cover. I've tried though. I think I've completed about 70%. I'm not exactly sure though. I myself get irritated by people using the Bible to push their agenda and yet they've never read it for themselves. They go on impressions they've formed. I plan on starting to read it again in the not to distant future.

Oh please, how can anyone know what the Bible really says? Anybody is just one of billions of interpreters with millions of interpretations about hundreds of thousands of topics. Why should I trust anyone's explanation about something with so many explanations?

Nice! Well said Phi!! I feel the exact same way.

Light does cause gravity, but it is very weak. Whilst the photon does not contain a gravitational mass, it can cause the curvature of space because any type of energy can do this.

Anything which is affected by gravity is said to have passive gravitational mass. Therefore a photon has passive gravitational mass. It's equal to its inertial mass by

[math]m = p/v = p/c = P^0/c[/math]

where P is the photon's 4-momentum. The source of gravity is given the name active gravitational mass, by definition, and is described by the stress-energy-momentum tensor T.

Evolution favors murder

Of course evolution favors murder. Emphasis on "survival" of the fittest. You never heard that it's a dog eat dog world? A murdered person doesn't survive, and can't reproduce. A murdered person's offspring have one less parent to raise them, and so, have less chance of survival. An already-murdered person cannot murder the murderer. Etc. Survival.

 

The Crusades were un-Christian

In other words, what about the Crusades was Christian? Nothing. I'm not the one who must show proof. I can say that the Crusades were un-Martian, un-Venusian, etc, until someone comes along makes a positive declaration. If someone finds something in the Bible that points to the Crusades as being Christian, please let me know.

 

Murder is wrong

Why is murder wrong? Murder enhances one's survival, so it's not wrong in an evolutionary sense. Is murder wrong because John Cuthber or Moontanman or ewmon says so?

A lot of what I've seen plowing through this thread is about people using the term "murder" to be the same thing as kill. They aren't. God said Thou shalt not murder, not Thou shalt not kill.

There's nothing wrong in killing when its not murder. Sometimes you have to kill someone to save your life or the life of someone else. God told the Hebrews to kill when they came to the promised land and found it occupied. Evolution favors self-defense, even to the extend of killing, but it doesn't favor murder when murder works in opposition to the public good.

I still look at it though as the lowest energy state for any quantum oscillator.

It is. It just doesn't mean that all photons are the multiple of a photon of minimal energy. Given any photon you wish you can change the inertial coordinate system to a new one in which the photon has the exact frequency that you'd like.